Wednesday, November 27, 2013

The name Chashmonai
appears many times in the Babylonian Talmud, but usually the references are
vague. The references are either to beit Chashmonai, malkhut
Chashmonai, malkhut beit Chashmonai, malkhei beit Chashmonai,
or beit dino shel Chashmonai.[2] One time (at Megillah 11a) the reference is
to an individual named Chashmonai, but neither his father nor his sons
are named.

The term Chashmonai (with the spelling חשמוניי) appears two times in the Jerusalem Talmud,
once in the second chapter of Taanit and the other in a parallel passage in the
first chapter of Megillah.[3] Both
times the reference is to the story of Judah defeating the Syrian military
commander Nicanor,[4] although
Judah is not mentioned by name. In the passage in Taanit, the reference is to echad
mi-shel beit Chashmonai.[5] In
the passage in Megillah, the reference is to echad mi-shel Chashmonai. Almost
certainly, the passage in Taanit preserves the original reading.[6] If
so, the reference is again vague.

Critically, the name Chashmonai is not
found in any form in I or II Maccabees, our main sources for the historical
background of the events of Chanukkah.[7] But
fortunately the name does appear in two sources in Tannaitic literature.[8]It is only through one of these two sources
that we can get a handle on the identity of Chashmonai.

------------

Already in the late first century, the
identity of Chashmonai seems to have been a mystery to Josephus.
(Josephus must have heard of the name from his extensive Pharisaic education,
and from being from the family.) In his Jewish War, he identifies Chashmonai
as the father of Mattathias.[9] Later,
at XII, 265 of his Antiquities, he identifies Chashmonai as the
great-grandfather of Mattathias.[10] Probably,
his approach here is the result of his knowing from I Maccabees 2:1 that
Mattathias was the son of a John who was the son of a Simon, and deciding to
integrate the name Chashmonai with this data by making him the father of
Simon.[11]
It is very likely that Josephus had no actual knowledge of the identity of Chashmonai
and was just speculating here. It is too coincidental that he places Chashmonai
as the father of Simon, where there is room for him. If Josephus truly had a tradition
from his family about the specific identity of Chashmonai, it would
already have been included in his Jewish War.

The standard printed text at Megillah 11a
implies that Chashmonai is not Mattathias: she-he-emadeti lahem
Shimon ha-Tzaddik ve-Chashmonai u-vanav u-Matityah kohen gadol…This is also
the implication of the standard printed text at Soferim 20:8, when it
sets forth the Palestinian version of the Amidah insertion for
Chanukkah; the textincludes the phrase: Matityahu ben Yochanan kohen
gadol ve-Chashmonai u-vanav...[12] There are also midrashim on Chanukkah that
refer to a Chashmonai who was a separate person from Mattathias and who
was instrumental in the revolt.[13]

But
the fact that I Maccabees does not mention any separate individual named Chashmonai
involved in the revolt strongly suggests that there was no such individual.
Moreover, there are alternative readings at both Megillah 11a and Soferim
20:8.[14] Also, the midrashim on Chanukkah that
refer to a Chashmonai who was a separate person from Mattathias are late
midrashim.[15] In the prevalent version of Al ha-Nissim
today, Chashmonai has no vav
preceding it.[16]

If
there was no separate person named Chashmonai at the time of the revolt,
and if the statement of Josephus that Chashmonai was the
great-grandfather of Mattathias is only a conjecture, who was Chashmonai?

Let
us look at our two earliest sources for Chashmonai. One of these is M. Middot 1:6.[17]

From here, it seems that Chashmonai is just another name for
Mattathias. This is also the implication of Chashmonai in many of the later
passages.[19]

The other Tannaitic source for Chashmonai
is Seder Olam, chap. 30. Here the language is: malkhut beit Chashmonai
meah ve-shalosh =the dynasty of
the House of Chashmonai, 103 [years].[20] Although one does not have to interpret Chashmonai
here as a reference to Mattathias, this
interpretation does fit this passage.

Thus a reasonable approach based on these
two early sources is to interpret Chashmonai as another way of referring
to Mattathias.[21] But
we still do not know why these sources would refer to him in this way. Of
course, one possibility is that it was his additional name.[22] Just
like each of his five sons had an additional name,[23]
perhaps Chashmonai was the
additional name of Mattathias.[24] But
I Maccabees, which stated that each of Mattathias’ sons had an additional name,
did not make any such statement in the case of Mattathias himself.

Perhaps we should not deduce much from this
omission. Nothing required the author of I Maccabees to mention that Mattathias
had an additional name. But one scholar has suggested an interesting reason for
the omission. It is very likely that a
main purpose of I Maccabees was the glorification of Mattathias in order to legitimize
the rule of his descendants.[25] Their
rule needed legitimization because the family was not from the priestly watch
of Yedayah. Traditionally, the high priest came from this watch.[26] I
Maccabees achieves its purpose by portraying a zealous Mattathias and creating
parallels between Mattathias and the Biblical Pinchas, who was rewarded with
the priesthood for his zealousness.[27]
Perhaps, it has been suggested, the author of I Maccabees left out the
additional name for Mattathias because it would remind readers of the obscure
origin of the dynasty.[28]
(We will discuss why this might have been the case when we discuss the meaning
of the name in the next section.)

-----

We have seen that a
reasonable approach, based on the two earliest rabbinic sources, is to
interpret Chashmonai as another way of referring to Mattathias.

The next question is the meaning
of the name. The name could be based on the name of some earlier ancestor of
Mattathias. But we have no clear knowledge of any ancestor of Mattathias with
this name.[29] Moreover,
this only begs the question of where the earlier ancestor would have obtained
this name.[30] The
most widely held view is that the name Chashmonai derives from a place that some ancestor of Mattathias
hailed from a few generations earlier. (Mattathias and his immediate ancestors hailed
from Modin.[31]) For
example, Joshua 15:27 refers to a place called Cheshmon in the area of
the tribe of Judah.[32]
Alternatively, a location Chashmonah is mentioned at Numbers 33:29-30 as
one of the places that the Israelites encamped in the desert.[33] In
either of these interpretations, the name may have reminded others of the
obscure origin of Mattathias’ ancestors and hence the author of I Maccabees
might have refrained from using it.

It has also been observed that the word חשמנים (Chashmanim) occurs
at Psalms 68:32:

.לאלקיםמני מצרים; כוש תריץ ידיוחַשְׁמַנִּיםיאתיו

Chashmanim
will come out of Egypt; Kush shall
hasten her hands to God.

(The context is that the nations of the world are bringing gifts and
singing to God.[34])

It has been suggested that the name Chashmonai
is related to חשמניםhere.[35] Unfortunately,
this is the only time the word חשמנים appears in Tanakh,
so its meaning is unclear.[36] The
Septuagint translates it as πρέσβεις (=ambassadors).[37] The
Talmud seems to imply that it means “gifts.”[38] Based
on a similar word in Egyptian, the meanings “bronze,” “natron” (a mixture used
for many purposes including as a dye), and “amethyst” (a quartz of blue or purplish
color) can be suggested.[39] Ugaritic
and Akkadian have a similar word with the meaning of a color, or colored stone,
or a coloring of dyed wool or leather; the color being perhaps red-purple, blue,
or green.[40] Based on
this, meanings such as red cloth or blue cloth have been suggested.[41] Based
on similar words in Arabic, “oil” and “horses and chariots” have been proposed.[42] A
connection to another hapax legomenon, אשמנים,[43]has also been
suggested. אשמנים perhaps
means darkness,[44] in
which case חשמנים, if related, may mean
dark-skinned people.[45]
Finally, it has been suggested thatחשמנים derives from the word שמן (oil), and that it refers to important people,
i.e., nobles, because the original meaning is “one who gives
off light.” (This is akin to “illustrious” in English).[46]

But the
simplest interpretation is that it refers to a people by the name חשמנים.[47] An
argument in favor of this is that חשמנים seems to be parallel to Kush, another people, in this verse.
Also, יאתיוis an active form; it means “will come,” and not “will
be brought.”[48]

Whatever the meaning of the word חשמנים, I would like to
raise the possibility that an ancestor of Mattathias lived in Egypt for a
period and that people began to call him something like Chashmonai upon
his return, based on this verse.

Conclusions

Even though Josephus identifies Chashmonai
as the great-grandfather of Mattathias, this was probably just speculation. It
is too coincidental that he places Chashmonai as the father of Simon,
precisely where there is room for him.

The most reasonable
approach, based on the earliest rabbinic sources, is to interpret Chashmonai
as another way of referring to Mattathias, either because it was his
additional name or for some other reason. A main purpose of I Maccabees was the
glorification of Mattathias in order to legitimize the rule of his descendants.
This may have led the author of I Maccabees to leave the name out; the author
would not have wanted to remind readers of the obscure origin of the
dynasty.

Most probably, the name Chashmonai
derives from a place that some ancestor of the family hailed from.

-----

A
few other points:

º
Most probably, the name חשמונאי did not originally include an aleph. The two earliest Mishnah manuscripts, Kaufmann
and Parma (De Rossi 138), spell the name חשמוניי.[49]
This is also how the name is spelled in the two passages in the Jerusalem
Talmud.[50]
As is the case with many other names that end with אי (such as שמאי),
the aleph is probably a later addition
that reflects the spelling practice in Babylonia.[51]

º The plural חשמונאים is not found in the rabbinic literature of
the Tannaitic or Amoraic periods,[52]
and seems to be a later development.[53] (An
alternative plural that also arose is חשמונים; this
plural probably arose earlier than the former.[54])
This raises the issue of whether the name was ever used in the plural in the
Second Temple period.

The first
recorded use of the name in the plural is by Josephus, writing in Greek in the
decades after the destruction of the Temple.[55] It
is possible that the name was never used as a group name or family name in
Temple times and that we have been misled by the use of the plural by Josephus.[56] On
the other hand, it is possible that by the time of Josephus the plural had
already come into use and Josephus was merely following prevailing usage. In
this approach, how early the plural came into use remains a question.

Since there is no evidence
that the name was used as a family or group name at the time of Mattathias himself,
the common translation in Al ha-Nissim: “the Hasmonean” (see, e.g.,
the Complete ArtScroll Siddur, p. 115) is misleading. It implies that he
was one of a group or family using this name at this time. A better translation
would be “Chashmonai,” implying that it was a description/additional name of Mattathias
alone.

° The last issue that needs to be addressed is the date
of Al ha-Nissim.

According to most scholars, the daily Amidah
was not instituted until the time of R. Gamliel, and even then the precise text
was not fixed.[57] Probably,
there was no Amidah at all for most of the Second Temple period.[58] The
only Amidot that perhaps came into existence in some form in the late
Second Temple period were those for the Sabbath and Biblical festivals.[59]
Based on all of the above, it is extremely unlikely that any part of our text
of Al ha-Nissim dates to the Hasmonean period.

The concept of an insertion in the Amidah for
Chanukkah is found already at Tosefta Berakhot 3:14. See also, in the Jerusalem
Talmud, Berakhot 4:1 and 7:4, and in the Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 24a, and
perhaps Shabbat 21b.[60]
But exactly what was being recited in the Tannaitic and Amoraic periods remains
unknown. The version recited today largely parallels what is found in the
sources from Geonic Babylonia. The version recited in Palestine in the parallel
period was much shorter. See Soferim 20:8 (20:6, ed. Higger).[61]
The fact that the Babylonian and Palestinian versions differ so greatly
suggests that the main text that we recite today for Al ha-Nissim is not
Tannaitic in origin. On the other hand, both versions do include a line that
begins biymei Matityah(u), so perhaps this line is a core line and could
date as early as the late first century or the second century C.E.[62]

In any event, the
prevalent version of Al ha-Nissim today, Matityahu … kohen gadol Chashmonai
u-vanav, can easily be understood as utilizing Chashmonai as an
additional name for Mattathias. But this may just be coincidence. It is
possible that the author knew of both names, did not understand the difference
between them, and merely placed them next to one another.[63]

On the other hand,
we have seen the reading ve-Chashmonai in both Al ha-Nissim and Tractate
Soferim. Perhaps this was the original reading, similar to the reading
in many manuscripts of Megillah 11a. Perhaps all of these texts were originally
composed with the assumption that Mattathias and Chashmonai were
separate individuals. But there is also a strong possibility that these vavs
arose later based on a failure to understand that the reference to Chashmonai
was also a reference to Mattathias.

------

Postscript: Anyone who is not satisfied
with my explanations for Chashmonai can adopt the explanation intuited
by my friend David Gertler when he was a child. His teacher was talking to the
class about Mattityahu-Chashmonai and his five sons, without providing
any explanation of the name Chashmonai. David reasoned: it must be that
he is called חשמני
because he had five sons (i.e., חמשי metathesized into חשמי/חשמני)![64]

[1] I would like to thank Rabbi Avrohom Lieberman, Rabbi
Ezra Frazer, and Sam Borodach for reviewing the draft.

I will spell the name Chashmonai
throughout, as is the modern convention, even though the vav has a shuruk
in the Kaufmann manuscript of the Mishnah and Chashmunai may be the
original pronunciation

[2] The references
to beit dino shel Chashmonai are at Sanhedrin 82a and Avodah Zarah
36b.

The name is also found in
sources such as Al ha-Nissim, the scholion to Megillat Taanit, Tractate
Soferim, Seder Olam Zuta, and Midrash Tehillim. These will
be discussed further below.

The name is also found in Megillat
Antiochus. This work, originally composed in Aramaic, seems to refer to bnei
Chashmunai and/or beit Chashmunai. See Menachem Tzvi Kadari, “Megillat
Antiochus ha-Aramit,” Bar Ilan 1 (1963), p. 100 (verse 61 and notes) and p. 101 (verse 64 and
notes). There is also perhaps a reference to the individual. See the added
paragraph at p. 101 (bottom). This work is
generally viewed as very unreliable. See, e.g.,EJ 14:1046-47.
Most likely, it was composed in Babylonia in the Geonic period. See Aryeh Kasher, “Ha-Reka ha-Historiy le-Chiburah
shel Megillat Antiochus,” in Bezalel Bar-Kochva, ed., Ha-Tekufah ha-Selukit
be-Eretz Yisrael (1980), pp. 85-102, and Zeev
Safrai, “The Scroll of Antiochus and the Scroll of Fasts,” in The Literature
of the Sages, vol. 2, eds. Shmuel Safrai, Zeev Safrai, Joshua Schwartz, and
Peter J. Tomson (2006). A Hebrew translation of Megillat Antiochus
was included in sources such as the Siddur Otzar ha-Tefillot and in the
Birnbaum Siddur.

[3] Taanit 2:8 (66a) and Megillah 1:3 (70c). In the Piotrkow
edition, the passages are at Taanit 2:12 and Megillah 1:4.

[4] This took place in 161 B.C.E. On this event, see I
Macc. 7:26-49, II Macc. 15:1-36, and
Josephus, Antiquities XII, 402-412.The story is also found at
Taanit 18b, where the name of the victor
is given more generally as malkhut
beit Chashmonai.

[5]Mi-shel and beit are combined and
written as one word in the Leiden manuscript. Also, there is a chirik
under the nun. See Yaakov Zusman’s 2001 edition of the Leiden
manuscript, p. 717.

[6] The phrase echad mi-shel Chashmonai is awkward and unusual; it seems fairly
obvious that a word such as beit is missing. Vered Noam, in her
discussion of the passages in the Jerusalem Talmud about Judah defeating
Nicanor, adopts the reading in Taanit and never even mentions the reading in
Megillah. See her Megillat Taanit (2003), p. 300.

There are no manuscripts of
the passage in Megillah other than the Leiden manuscript. There is another manuscript
of the passage in Taanit. It is from the Genizah and probably dates earlier than
the Leiden manuscript (copied in 1289). It reads echad mi-shel-beit
Chashmonai. See Levi (Louis) Ginzberg, Seridei ha-Yerushalmi (1909),
p. 180.

Mi-shel and Chashmonai are combined
and written as one word in the Leiden manuscript of the passage in Megillah and
there is no vocalization under the nun of Chashmonai here.

[7] I Maccabees
was probably composed after the death of John Hyrcanus in 104 B.C.E., or at
least when his reign was well-advanced. See I Macc. 16:23-24. II Maccabees is largely an abridgment of the
work of someone named Jason of Cyrene. This Jason is otherwise unknown. Many
scholars believe that he was a contemporary of Judah. Mattathias is not mentioned in II Macc. The main plot of the Chanukkah story (=the persecution of the
Jews by Antiochus IV and the Jewish rededication of the Temple) took place over
the years 167-164 B.C.E.

Earlier, at I, 19, he wrote
that Antiochus Epiphanes was expelled by ’Ασαμωναίου παίδων (“the sons of” Chashmonai; see the Loeb edition, p.
13, note a. ). This perhaps implies an equation of Chashmonai and
Mattathias, But παίδων probably means “descendants of” here.

[10] XII, 265. Jonathan Goldstein in his I Maccabees
(Anchor Bible, 1976), p. 19, prefers a different translation of the Greek
here. He claims that, in this passage, Josephus identifies Chashmonai
with Simon. But Goldstein’s translation of this passage is not the one adopted
by most scholars.

There are also passages in Antiquities
that could imply that Chashmonai is to be identified with Mattathias.
See XX, 190, 238, and 249. But παίδων probably has the meaning of “descendants of ” (and not “sons of”) in these
passages, and there is no such identification implied.

The ancient table of contents
that prefaces book XII of Antiquities identifies Chashmonai as
the father of Mattathias. See Antiquities, XII, pp. 706-07, Loeb edition. (This edition
publishes these tables of contents at the end of each book.) But these tables
of contents may not have been composed by Josephus but by his assistants.
Alternatively, they may have been composed centuries later.

In his autobiographical work Life (paras. 2 and 4), Josephus mentions
Chashmonai as his ancestor. But the statements are too vague to
determine his identity. This work was composed a few years after Antiquities.

[11] Goldstein suggests (pp. 60-61) that Josephus did not
have I Macc. in front of him when writing his Jewish War, even though Goldstein
believes that Josephus had read it and was utilizing his recollection of it as
a source. Another view is that Josephus drew his sketch of Hasmonean history in
his Jewish War mainly from the gentile historian Nicolaus of Damascus.

[12] I am not referring to the Palestinian version as Al
ha-Nissim, since it lacks this phrase.

The text of Al ha-Nissim in the Seder R. Amram (ed.
Goldschmidt, p. 97) is the same (except that it reads Matityah). See
also R. Abraham Ha-Yarchi (12th cent.), Ha-Manhig (ed. Raphael), vol. 2,
p. 528, which refers to Matityah kohen gadol ve-Chashmonai u-vanav, and
seems to be quoting here from an earlier midrashic source. Finally, see Midrash
Tehillim, chap. 30:6 which refers to Chashmonai u-vanav and then to beney
Matityahu. The passages clearly imply that these are different groups.

[13] See the midrashim on Chanukkah first published by
Adolf Jellinek in the mid-19th century, later republished by Judah
David Eisenstein in his Otzar Midrashim (1915). Mattathias and Chashmonai
are clearly two separate individuals in the texts which Einsenstein calls Midrash
Maaseh Chanukkah and Maaseh Chanukkah, Nusach ‘ב. See also
Rashi to Deut. 33:11 (referring to twelve sons of Chashmonai).

[14] As I write
this, Lieberman-institute.com records four manuscripts that have Chashmonai
with the initial vav like the Vilna edition, two manuscripts that have Chashmonai
without the initial vav (Goettingen 3, and Oxford Opp. Add. fol. 23),
and one manuscript (Munich 95) that does not have the name at all. (Another
manuscript does not have the name but it is too fragmentary.) There are three
more manuscripts of Megillah 11a, aside from what is presently recorded on
Lieberman-institute.com. See Yaakov Zusman, Otzar Kivei ha-Yad ha-Talmudiyyim
(2012), vol. 3, p. 211. I have not
checked these.

With regard to the passage in
Soferim 20:8, there is at least one manuscript that readsחשמונאי(without
the initial vav). See Michael Higger, ed., Massekhet Soferim
(1937), p. 346, line 35 (text). (It seems that Higger printed the reading
of ms.בin the
text here.)

[15] These midrashim are estimated to have been compiled
in the 10th century. EJ 11:1511.

[16] The prevalent version is based on the Siddur Rav
Saadiah Gaon (p. 255): Matityah ben Yochanan kohen gadol Chashmonai u-vanav.
This version too can be read as reflecting the idea that Chashmonai was
a separate person.

[17] Middot is a tractate that perhaps reached close to
complete form earlier than most of the other tractates. See Abraham Goldberg,
“The Mishna- A Study Book of Halakha,” in The Literature of the Sages,
vol. 1, ed. Shmuel Safrai (1987).

[18] The above is the text in the Kaufmann Mishnah
manuscript. Regarding the word beney, this is the reading in both the
Kaufmann and Parma (De Rossi 138) manuscripts. Admittedly, other manuscripts
of Mishnah Middot 1:6, such as the one
included in the Munich manuscript of the Talmud, read ganzu beit Chashmonai.
But the Kaufmann and Parma (De Rossi 138) manuscripts are generally viewed as
the most reliable ones. Moreover, the beit reading does not fit the
context. Since the references to Chashmonai in the Babylonian Talmud are
often prefixed by the word beit and are never prefixed by the word beney,
we can understand how an erroneous reading of beit could have crept into
the Mishnah here.

The Mishnah in Middot is
quoted at Yoma 16a and Avodah Zarah 52b. At Yoma 16a, Lieberman-institute.com
presently records five manuscripts or early printed editions with beit,
and none with bnei. At Avodah Zarah 52b, it records three with beit
and one with beney. (The Vilna edition has beit in both
places.)

Regarding the spelling חשמוניי in the Mishnah, most
likely, this was the original spelling of the name. See the discussion below.

I also must mention the scholion to Megillat
Taanit. (I am not talking about Megillat Taanit itself. There are no
references to Chashmonai there.) As Vered Noam has shown in her critical
edition of Megillat Taanit, the two most important manuscripts to the
scholion are the Parma manuscript and the Oxford manuscript.

If we look at the Parma manuscript to the
scholion to 25 Kislev, it uses the phrase nikhnesu beney Chashmonai le-har
ha-bayit, implying that the author of this passage viewed Chashmonai
as Mattathias.

On 14 Sivan, the
Oxford manuscript of the scholion tells us that חשמונאיידוכשגברה, the city
of קסרי was conquered. Probably, the
author of this passage is referring to the acquisition of Caesarea by Alexander
Yannai, and the author is using Chashmonai loosely. Probably the author
meant beit Chashmonai or malkhut beit Chashmonai. (One of these
may even have been the original text.)

On 15-16 Sivan, the Parma manuscript
of the scholion tells us about the military victory of חשמונאיבני over Beit Shean. We know from Josephus (Antiquities
XIII, 275-83 and Jewish War I, 64-66) that this was a victory that occurred
in the time of John Hyrcanus and that his the sons were the leaders in the
battle. But it would be a leap to deduce that the author of this passage believed
that John was חשמונאי. Probably, the author was
using חשמונאיבניloosely and meant beit Chashmonai or malkhut beit Chashmonai. Not surprisingly, the Oxford
manuscript has beit Chashmonai here.

In the balance of the passages in the
scholion, if we look only at the Parma and Oxford manuscripts, references to beit
Chashmonai or malkhut beit Chashmonai are found at 23 Iyyar, 27 Iyyar,
24 Av, 3 Tishrei, 23 Marchesvan, 3 Kislev, 25 Kislev,
and 13 Adar.

[20] This passage is quoted at Avodah Zarah 9a. In the
Vilna edition, the passage reads malkhut Chashmonai. The three
manuscripts presently recorded at Lieberman-Institute.com all include the beit
preceding חשמונאי. The other source recorded there is the Pesaro printed edition
of 1515. This source reads חשמוניימלכות.

[21] One can also make this argument based on the passage
in the first chapter of Megillah in the Jerusalem Talmud: משלחשמונייאחדויצא. This passage tells a story about Judah (without mentioning him
by name). But the parallel passage in the
second chapter of Taanit reads: חשמונייביתמשלאחדאליוויצא. As pointed
out earlier, almost certainly this is the original reading. Moreover, if a
passage intended to refer to a son of Chashmonai, the reading we would
expect would be: חשמוניימבניאחדויצא.

[22] Goldstein, p. 19, n. 34, writes that the Byzantine
chronicler Georgius Syncellus (c. 800) wrote that Asamόnaios was
Mattathias’ additional name. Surely, this was just a conjecture by the
chronicler or whatever source was before him.

[23] The additional names for the sons were: Makkabaios
(Μακκαβαîος), Gaddi (Γαδδι),
Thassi (Θασσι), Auaran (Αυαραν) and Apphous (Απφους). These were the names for
Judah, John, Simon, Eleazar and Jonathan,
respectively. See I Macc. 2:2-4.

Our pattern of
given name(s) plus surname did not exist among ancient Jews, who bore

only a given
name. The names of Mattathias and his sons were extremely common in

Jewish priestly
families. Where many persons in a society bear the same name, there

must be some way
to distinguish one from another. Often the way is to add to the over-

common given name
other names or epithets. These additional appellations may describe

the person or his
feats or his ancestry or his place of origin; they may even be taunt-epithets.

The names Mattityah and
Mattiyahu do occur in Tanakh, at I Ch. 9:31, 15:18, 15:21, 16:5, 25:3,
25:21, Ezra 10:43, and Nehemiah 8:4. But to say that that these names were
common prior to the valorous deeds of Mattathias and his sons is still
conjectural. (Admittedly, the names did become common thereafter.)

As mentioned earlier, I
Maccabees was probably composed after the death of John Hyrcanus in 104 BCE, or
at least when his reign was well-advanced. See I Macc. 16:23-24.

[26] According to I Macc.
2:1, Mattathias was from the priestly watch of Yehoyariv. Of course,
even if he would have been from the watch of Yedayah, the rule of his
descendants would have needed legitimization because they were priests and not
from the tribe of Judah or the Davidic line.

[27] See, e.g., Goldstein, pp. 5-7 and I Macc. 2:26
and 2:54. Of course, the parallel to Pinchas is not perfect. As a result of his
zealousness, Pinchas became a priest; he did not become the high priest.

[28]
Goldstein, pp. 17-19. Josephus, writing after the destruction of the Temple and
not attempting to legitimize the dynasty, would not have had this concern. (I
am hesitant to agree with Goldstein on anything, as his editions of I and II
Maccabees are filled with far-reaching speculations. Nevertheless, I am willing
to take his suggestion seriously here.)

[29] As mentioned earlier, the identification by Josephus of
Chashmonai as the great-grandfather of Mattathias is probably just
speculation.

[30] It has been suggested that it was the name of an
ancestor. See, e.g., H. St. J. Thackeray, ed., Josephus: Life
(Loeb Classical Library, 1926), p. 3, who theorizes that the Hasmoneans were
named after “an eponymous hero Hashmon.” Julius Wellhausen theorized that, at I
Macc. 2:1, the original reading was “son of Hashmon,” and not “son of Simon.”
See Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus
Christ, revised and edited by Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar, and Matthew
Black, vol. 1 (1973), p. 194, n. 14.

[33] See,
e.g.,EJ 7:1455. Another
less likely alternative is to link the name with Chushim of the tribe of
Benjamin, mentioned at I Ch. 8:11.

[34] The probable implication of the second part of verse
32 is that the people of Kush will hasten to spread their hands in prayer, or
hasten to bring gifts with their hands. See Daat Mikra to 68:32.

[35] This is raised as a possibility by many scholars. Some
of the rabbinic commentaries that suggest this include R. Abraham Ibn Ezra and
Radak. See their commentaries on Ps. 68:32. See also Radak, Sefer ha-Shoreshim,חשמן, and R. Yosef Caro, Beit
Yosef, OH 682. The unknown author of Maoz Tzur also seems to adopt
this approach (perhaps only because he was trying to rhyme with השמנים).

[36] Some scholars are willing to emend the text. See, for
example, the suggested emendations at Encyclopedia Mikrait 3:317, entry חשמנים(such as משמנים = from the
oil.) The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew
and English Lexicon (1906) writes that there is “doubtless” a textual error
here.

Some Rishonim interpret the
termחשמנים here as rulers or people of importance. See, e.g.,
the commentaries on Psalms 68:32 of Ibn Ezra (סגנים) and Radak. See also Radak, Sefer
ha-Shoreshim, חשמן,
and R. Yosef Caro, Beit Yosef, OH
682. What motivates this interpretation is the use of the term in connection
with Mattathias. But we do not know the meaning of the term in connection with
Mattathias.

[38] See
Pes. 118b (דורון). Perhaps supporting this is verse 68:30 (lekha yovilu
melakhim shai). See Rashbam to Pes.
118b. Also, the interpretation מנותדורונות is found at Midrash Tehillim
(ed. Buber, p. 320). It also seems to be the view of Rashi.

[39] On the Egyptian word ḥsmn as bronze or natron,
and reading one of these into this verse, see William F. Albright, “A Catalogue
of Early Hebrew Lyric Poems,” Hebrew Union College Annual 23 (1950-51),
pp. 33-34. Jeremy Black, “Amethysts,” Iraq 63 (2001), pp. 183-186, explains
that ḥsmn also has the meaning amethyst in Egyptian. But he does not
read this into Ps. 68:32. (He reads it into the Biblical חשמל.)

Based on the Akkadian, George
Wolf suggests thatחשמנים refers to nobles and high officials because
they wore purple clothing. See his Studies in the Hebrew Bible and Early
Rabbinic Judaism (1994), p. 94

[42] For “oil,” see Encyclopedia Mikrait 3:317,
entry חשמנים (one of the many possible interpretations mentioned there). For “horses and chariots,” see Daat Mikra
to 68:32 (citing the scholar Arnold Ehrlich and the reference to the coming of
horses and chariots at Is. 66:20).

[44] Ernest Klein, A
Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language for Readers of
English (1987), p. 58, writes that it usually translated as “darkness.”
Some Rishonim who adopt this interpretation are Menachem ben Saruk (quoted in
Rashi) and Ibn Janach. Note also the parallel to Psalms 143:3. On the other
hand, the parallel to בצהרים at Is. 59:10 suggests that the meaning of באשמנים is “in the light,” as argued by
Solomon Mandelkern in his concordance Heikhal ha-Kodesh (1896), p. 158.

[45] See Midrash Tehillim (ed. Buber, p. 320): שחוריםאנשים. This is the fourth
interpretation suggested there. Buber puts the second, third, and fourth
interpretations in parenthesis, as he believes they were not in the original
text. The first interpretation is מנותדורונות. The second
and third interpretations are farfetched plays on words.

Also, the original reading
in the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan translation of חשמנים seems to be אוכמנא or אוכמנאי, meaning “dark
people.” See David M. Stec, The Targum of Psalms (2004) p. 133. The
standard printed editions have a different reading (based on an early
printed edition) and imply that חשמנים was the name of a particular Egyptian
tribe.

[46] See Mandelkern, p. 433, who cites this view even though he disagrees
with it.

[47] A modern scholar who takes this approach is Menachem
Tzvi Kadari. See his Millon ha-Ivrit ha-Mikrait (2006). This also seems
to be the approach taken in the standard printed edition of the Targum
Pseudo-Jonathan, even though this does not seem to be the original reading. See
also Rashi to Ps. 68:32, citing Menachem ben Saruk who claims that they are the
residents of Chashmonah. See also Radak,
Sefer ha-Shoreshim,חשמן(second
suggestion) and Mandelkern, p. 433.

Gen. 10:14 mentions כסלחים as one of
the sons of Mitzrayim. Interestingly, one of the three early texts of
the Septuagint (codex Alexandrinus, fifth cent.) reads Χασμωνιειμ
(=Chasmonieim) here. If this were the original reading, this would suggest that
there were a people called Hashmanim (or something similar) in second
century B.C.E. Egypt. But the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus codices (which are
earlier than the Alexandrinus codex) do not have this reading; they have
something closer to the Hebrew. Most
likely, the reading in the Alexandrinus codex is just a later textual
corruption. See John William Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Genesis (1993),
p. 136.

[49]
The Kaufmann manuscript dates to the tenth or eleventh century. The Parma (De
Rossi 138) manuscript dates to the eleventh century. The vocalization in both
was inserted later. In the Kaufmann manuscript, there is a patach under
the nun and a chirik under the first yod. Also, the vav
is dotted with a shuruk. (The Parma manuscript does not have
vocalization in tractate Middot; the manuscript is not vocalized throughout.).

The Leiden manuscript of the
Jerusalem Talmud includes a chirik under the nun in the passage
in Taanit (66a). See Zusman’s 2001 edition of the Leiden manuscript, p. 717.
There is no vocalization under the nun in the passage in Megillah (70c).

[50]חשמונאי is the spelling in all but one
of the manuscripts and early printed editions of Seder Olam. One
manuscript spells the name חשמוני. See Chaim
Joseph Milikowsky, Seder Olam: A Rabbinic Chronography (1981), p. 440.

Also, חשמוניי is the spelling in the text of Pesikta
de-Rav Kahana that was published by Bernard Mandelbaum in his critical
edition of this work (p. 107). (But see the notes for the variant readings.)
Also, חשמוניי is the spelling in the
text of the Theodor-Albeck edition of Bereshit Rabbah, at section 97 (p.
1225). (But see the notes for the variant readings.). See also ibid., p.
1274, note to line 6 (חשמניי).

Also, Lieberman-institute.com
cites one manuscript of Menachot 64b with the spelling חשמוניי. This is
also the spelling used by R. Eleazar Kallir (early seventh century). See his piyyut
for Chanukkah לצלעינכוןאיד (to be published by Ophir Münz-Manor).

[51] I would like to thank Prof. Richard Steiner for
pointing this out to me.

[52] Jastrow, entry חשמונאי, cites the
plural as appearing in some editions of
Bava Kama 82b (but not in the Vilna edition.) Lieberman-institute.com presently
records five manuscripts of Bava Kama 82b. All have the word in the singular
here.

The EJ (7:1454) has an entry “Hasmonean
Bet Din.” The entry has a Hebrew title as well: חשמונאיםשלדיןבית. The entry cites to Sanhedrin 82a and Avodah Zarah 36b, and
refers to “the court of the Hasmoneans.” (In the new edition of the EJ,
the same entry is republished.) Yet none of the manuscripts presently recorded
at Lieberman-institute.com on these two passages have the plural.
(Lieberman-institute.com presently records two manuscripts of Sanhedrin 82a and
three manuscripts of Avodah Zarah 36b. According to Zusman, Otzar Kivei
Ha-Yad Ha-Talmudiyyim, vol. 3, p. 233 and 235, there are three more
manuscripts of Sanhedrin 82a extant. I have not checked these.)

Probably, the reason for the
use of the plural in the EJ entry is that scholars began to use the
plural for this mysterious bet din, despite the two references in Talmud
being in the singular. See, e.g., Zacharias Frankel, Darkhei
ha-Mishnah (1859), p. 43.

Other erroneous citations to a supposed word חשמונאים are found at
Chanukah (ArtScroll Mesorah Series), p. 68, n. 6.

[53] The earliest references to this plural that I am are
aware of are at Midrash Tehillim 5:11
(ובניוחשמונאים), and 93:1 (חשמונאיםבני). But it is possible that
חשמונאיםmay not be the original reading in either of these
passages. The reference at 5:11 is obviously problematic. Also, the line may be
a later addition to the work. See Midrash Tehillim, ed. Buber, p. 56, n.
66. (This work also refers to חשמונאיבית and ובניוחשמונאי. See 22:9,
30:6, and 36:6.) The next earliest use of this plural that I am aware of is at Bereshit
Rabbati, section Vayechi, p. 253 (ed. Albeck): חשמונאיםבני. This work
is generally viewed as an adaptation of an earlier (lost) work by R. Moshe
ha-Darshan (11th cent.)

[54]חשמונים is found in the piyyutשמנהכלאעדיף by R. Eleazar
Kallir (early seventh century) and in the works of several eighth century paytannim
as well. Perhaps even earlier are the references in Seder Olam Zuta.
See, e.g., the text of this work published by Adolf Neubauer in his Seder
ha-Chakhamim ve-Korot ha-Yamim, vol. 2 (1895), pp. 71, 74 and 75. See also
the Theodor-Albeck edition of Bereshit Rabbah, section 97, p. 1225,
notes to line 2, recording a variant with the reading חשמונים. Also,
Yosippon always refers to theחשמונים when
referring to the group in the plural. (In the singular, his references are toחשמונאי and חשמוניי.) Also, Lieberman-institute.com
cites one manuscript of Megillah 6a (Columbia X 893 T 141) with the reading חשמונים.

[56] It is interesting that a similar development occurred
in connection with the name “Maccabee.” The name was originally an additional
name of Judah only. Centuries later, all of the brothers came to be referred to
by the early church fathers as “Maccabees.” See Goldstein, pp. 3-4.

The first two points to be
noted concerning the Amida’s history are that: (1) R. Gamliel

and his colleagues in late
first-century CE Yavneh created the institution of the Amida,

its nineteen particular
subjects, and the order of those subjects, though not their

fully-fixed text, and (2)
this creation was a critical part of the Rabbinic response to the

great theological challenge
posed by the Second Temple’s destruction and the ensuing

exile…

See also Berakhot 28b.

[58] Admittedly, this view disagrees with Megillah 17b
which attributes the Shemoneh Esreh of eighteen blessings to an ancient
group of 120 elders that included some prophets (probably an equivalent term
for the Men of the Great Assembly.) But note that according to Megillah 18a,
the eighteen blessings were initially instituted by the 120 elders, but were forgotten
and later restored in the time of R. Gamliel and Yavneh. See also Berakhot 33a,
which attributes the enactment of תפילות to the Men
of the Great Assembly.

[59] See, e.g., the discussion by Joseph Tabory in
“Prayers and Berakhot,” in The Literature of the Sages, vol. 2, pp.
295-96 and 315-316. Tabory points to disagreements recorded between the House
of Hillel and the House of Shammai regarding the number of blessings in the Amidot
for Yom Tov and Rosh ha-Shanah when these fall on the Sabbath. See Tosefta Rosh
ha-Shanah 2:16 and Tosefta Berakhot 3:13. Disagreements between the House of
Hillel and the House of Shammai typically (but not exclusively) date to the
last decades of the Temple period. See EJ 4:738. The reference to Choni
ha-Katan in the story at Tosefta Rosh ha-Shanah also perhaps supports the
antiquity of the disagreement. (This individual is not mentioned elsewhere in
Tannaitic or Amoraic literature.)

[60] With regard to Birkat ha-Mazon, the practice
of reciting Al ha-Nissim here seems to only have commenced in the
Amoraic period. See Shabbat 24a.

[61] The first two words of the Palestinian version, פלאיךוכניסי, are also
referred to in שמנהכלאעדיף, a Chanukkah piyyut by R. Eleazar Kallir (early
seventh century).

[62] Early authorship of Al ha-Nissim is suggested
by the fact that some of its language resembles language in I and II Macc. See
particularly I Macc. 1:49, 3:17-20, 4:24, 4:43, 4:55, and II Macc. 1:17 and
10:7. See also perhaps I Macc. 4:59. The original Hebrew version of I Macc. was
still in existence at the time of Jerome (4th century). See Goldstein,
p. 16.

[63] It has already been pointed out that Josephus, having
I Maccabees 2:1 in front of him (=Mattathias was the son of John who was the son of Simon), was faced with a similar problem. The
solution of Josephus was to conjecture that Chashmonai was the father of
Simon.

[64] I Macc. 2:2-4 states explicitly that Mattathias had
five sons: John, Simon, Judah, Eleazar and Jonathan. Another brother, Ιωσηπον
(=Joseph), is mentioned at II Macc. 8:22.But it has been suggested that the
original reading here was Ιωαννης (=John), or that Joseph was only a
half-brother, sharing only a mother.